There's Nothing "Normal" About A Middle Class: a Thom Hartmann must-read.

[raccoon]

There is nothing "normal" about a nation having a middle class, even though it is vital to the survival of democracy.

As twenty-three years of conservative economic policies have now shown millions of un- and underemployed Americans, what's "normal" in a "free and unfettered" economy is the rapid evolution of a small but fabulously wealthy ownership class, and a large but poor working class. In the entire history of civilization, outside of a small mercantilist class and the very few skilled tradesmen who'd managed to organize in guilds (the earliest unions) like the ancient Masons, the middle class was an aberration.

A middle class can only come about in one of two ways.

The first is by a sudden change in the relationship between population and resources. After the Black Death wiped out more than a third of the population in 14th century Europe, the increased demand for labor drove up the price of labor to the point when a middle class emerged in some places. Many historians identify this as one of the factors that brought about the Renaissance.
Another example came four hundred years later, when a second European middle class (and the first European middle class in North America) emerged because of the "discovery" of "resources" (e.g. "we can steal gold, wood, furs, and land from Native Americans) in The Americas. Some historians suggest that increasing the overall wealth of Europe (and Europeans living in North America) while the overall population was relatively stable produced not just a second middle class, but brought about The Enlightenment and the American Revolution as well.


(snip)


And as history around the world proves, when the middle class vanishes, democracy often goes with it.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/theres-nothing-normal-_b_32532.html

[raccoon]

1. Come to think of it, IMO societies that don't have a middle class are usually stagnant.

Such as medieval Europe and the antebellum South.

I think it's because in such societies the upper class doesn't want any change and the lower class is so busy trying to survive that they can't bring about any change.

[lurky]

2. Yeah, and most 3rd world countries

have the same dynamic: A bunch of ultra-rich, corrupt oligarchs who run the show, and a huge majority of miserable poor people struggling to survive.

Left unchecked, this is where Republican policy will logically take us. (Not next year, but maybe quicker than you think).

[ProfessorGAC]

3. There's More To It

A large middle class has been clearly and causative correlated to economic health and sustainability.

Societies move forward by innovation and an expansion of a state of Maslowe's higher level of need.

Economies burgeon when people without sufficient self-capitalization can work for someone else, innovate, be reasonably compensated, and provide new benefits to society. (Even it's just a new and improved shampoo.)

This propels things forward for all while creating a larger segment of society who has hit the "luxury" or "comfort" need that Maslowe described. This greater need of comfort drives higher productivity, which creates more wealth at the top, more jobs in the middle and even greater demand.

The middle class is the single reason for the explosion of the American economy after WWI and continues, albeit in a weaker fashion than at any time since the Depression, to this day.
The Professor

[The2ndWheel]

5. Moving and propelling forward...to what?

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Huh?

Your question is a non-sequitur. This isn't a debate about whether or not you like capitalism or whether it's perfect.

It's about whether the middle class is the engine that drives a society.

The destination wasn't even part of the discussion.
The Professor

[The2ndWheel]

7. "It's about whether the middle class is the engine that drives a society."

"The destination wasn't even part of the discussion."

We've got the engine, and we're using it, but we have no idea where we're going? That's not very efficient.

Maybe the destination should be part of the discussion. We're talking about the lives of billions of people around the world. Where are we going with this grand experiment? Should we know what the goal is? Is there a goal? Since we're on a linear time line, going forward, what are we looking to accomplish? Economically speaking, at least to me, that's a more important question than how we're getting there.

[The2ndWheel]

4. By definition, there has to be an upper and a lower, if there is to be a middle

"After the Black Death wiped out more than a third of the population in 14th century Europe, the increased demand for labor drove up the price of labor to the point when a middle class emerged in some places."

And we now live in a global world with 6.7+ billion cogs. Not only do we have more than enough people, more tasks are automated. Also, more jobs can be done from anywhere, with cheaper energy, instant global communication, etc.

"Another example came four hundred years later, when a second European middle class (and the first European middle class in North America) emerged because of the "discovery" of "resources" (e.g. "we can steal gold, wood, furs, and land from Native Americans) in The Americas."

That might say something about the nature of ever increasing large scale economics.